In the Interest of the
University of Liberia
By: George Daweh Yuoh
The Perspective
Atlanta, Georgia
August 24, 2004
 |
|
Dr. Al-Hassan Conteh
|
However, and in order for such resistance to be meaningful and beneficial to the greater good, it must be done with an understanding of the issues and in the interest of the whole.
What is the basis for this commotion? First, I have to say that I
am very disappointed by the actions of the University of Liberia Faculty
Association (ULFA) to boycott classes, as the means of expressing
their dissatisfaction over Dr. Conteh's appointment. And ULFA's point
of contention, that the appointment must be made from within, is bereft
of the most elementary standard for institutional restructuring, especially
in times of crisis. ULFA should be the last group to cause a meaningless
disruption in the learning process of the students; and if even they
had to, it should have been a matter of last resort, rather than their
first option.
The issue therefore is, whether the appointment of Dr. Conteh was fair and in the best interest of the University of Liberia. Here, ULFA has failed miserably to make a case. The fact that they were aware of the Search Committee on UL Presidency, and the committee's terms of reference, pre-supposes that they knew that the selection would have gone either which way, objectively, based on the credentials of the best suitable candidate. To come now and refuse the outcome, only because the successful candidate is not a member of their ranks and file, is to question the integrity, qualifications, independence and judgment of the Search Committee (a very fine group of reputable Liberian professionals). Such a contention would have been acceptable had they had a case of biases and questionable actions in the selection process on the part of the Committee. But this is not the case. They are screaming only because Dr. Conteh is not "one of them".
For the benefit of the critics of the selection, let's ask a few essential questions. Is Dr. Conteh a less qualified candidate than Dr. Kollie academically? Which candidate has a better track record of successful management? Who stands in a better position to provide the University of Liberia with the much-needed national and international contacts necessary for solicitations on behalf of the UL at this critical time? I am sure these were the questions and many more that the Search Committee tried to provide answers to when they set their criteria and job requirements.
I am not in the position to pass judgment on the academic credentials and qualification of the two gentlemen, and I am the least qualified to do that. They both have doctorate degrees and I have no way of knowing their individual academic progress since obtaining those degrees. I would therefore assume that they both meet the academic requirements. Let's therefore look at the other possible criteria that may have been considered in judging the expected performances of both men within the context and confines of their involvement with the University of Liberia. This is not an official version of the Search Committee. Rather, it is a personal perspective based on my knowledge of the two gentlemen.
During my stay at the graduate program in Regional Planning at the
University of Liberia, at which time Dr. James Kollie was its head,
the learning condition at the school was woeful, to say the least.
While I agree that there was a general lack of instructional supplies
and facilities then at the University, there was a seeming lack of
leadership efforts at Regional Planning to provide the most basic
learning conditions
and capacity necessary for a graduate school. On the other hand, successive
deans of the Louis Arthur Grimes Law School successfully negotiated
with the US Departments of Justice and State, through the US Embassy
in Monrovia to have the law school and its library refurbished, refurnished
and supplied with text references. Additionally, instructors at the
law school were among the best lawyers in the country. But at Regional
Planning, we competed for leaking and holes-filled classrooms with
undergraduate students at FQ. There were no course reference materials,
and we had to
rely heavily on notes taking, like beginners at the undergraduate
levels. The situation of the instructional staff was a case of the
one eye man being king among the blinds. While this is not meant to
cast aspersions on the abilities of Dr. Kollie, there was a lack of
initiative to better the situation.
Dr. Conteh for his part served as vice-president for academic affairs at the University. While the policy of placing instructors in classrooms deserved better, it was not for a lack of trying. Teaching at University was not an attractive option for many professionals and so the UL had to make-do with a lot of part-timers, some of who had questionable credentials. And most of these instructors were allowed to get away with unprofessional practices, despite outcries from students. Instructors became law upon themselves and their actions were never called into question by the authorities at the UL. This adversely affected the output standard of the University. In addition, the general course contents at the University were in serious need of revision. Instructors were teaching based on course work and requirements designed as far back as the 1970s or beyond. While this was not all the fault of Dr. Conteh, due to the fact that he inherited the rotten system, I believe he could have done better to improve the situation.
But where Dr. Conteh has a clear-cut advantage and better record over Dr. Kollie is the former's propensity to create and provide the necessary contacts that the UL need at this crucial time of its reconstruction process. While Dr. Conteh may not be the best possible option, he has done far better in soliciting support for the University in recent times than any of the other candidates. He has continued to create international awareness about the plight and needs of the University, even though he is not receiving pay from the UL to do so. In addition, his recent work affiliation with other universities in the USA puts him miles ahead of Dr. Kollie in being able to establish contacts for international assistance for the UL. While Dr. Kollie may be a loyal servant, he lacks the required external relationship credentials needed for the presidency of the University of Liberia at this time. The appointment of Dr. Conteh, therefore, is in the best interest of the University of Liberia, given the options available to the Search Committee.
It is about time in Liberia that people are appointed to key leadership
positions based on their qualifications, including academic and leadership
experience and competence, as well as the individuals' ability to
make a difference at the institution. The president of the UL must
be able to add value to the institutional rebuilding efforts at the
University, and must demonstrate the ability to keep the UL afloat
during these most critical
times. The University needs a president who will be pro-active and
not someone who is going to fold his hands and depend wholly and solely
on central government for the survival of the institution. In short,
the president of the University of Liberia must be an asset to the
University.
Therefore, ULFA's contention that the president of the University
be appointed on the basis of sentiments, rather than professional
capability, is unacceptable and a disservice to the UL family, especially
the students of Liberia. ULFA members should hold their heads in shame
for raising such a disgraceful contention. There is a difference between
managerial competence and blind loyalty. The UL deserves the finest
and most motivated of our academic managers and administrators available
for selection. The University of Liberia is under obligation to set
standards for the greater
Liberian society to emulate. It is therefore insalubrious for the
instructors to send out the wrong signals that nepotism is a better
option to professional competence. We acknowledge with pride the responsible
deportment of the students so far, and would not hesitate to refer
ULFA to the University's student community for guidance. "LUX
IN TENEBRIS" is light in darkness, and ULFA needs to shine a
far better and brighter light than the hideous image it is emitting.
ULFA protest is irresponsible and is not in the interest of the University
of Liberia.
The repulsive act of rebelling and then agreeing to negotiate for personal gains must never find a place in the walls of the University. The work of the Search Committee is commendable and must be considered irrevocable. The Committee chose substance over prêt-à-porter. The students too have exhibited an unprecedented level of maturity, and have sent a clear message to the disgruntle instructors that they will not be used as pawns in such an ineffectual adventure. In furthering their selfish agendas, political gangsters have over the years used the students of the UL as acceptable casualties. A line has been drawn, and the students should insist that that line remains bold and unbreakable. The interest of the University of Liberia must supersede all other personal benefits.
About The Author: The author is the President of the Association of University of Liberia Graduates and former Students in the Americas, AULGSA-Minnesota. However, the views expressed above are those of the author's alone, and do not represent nor reflect those of the association. He can be reached at: georgeyuoh@yahoo.com
